James v. State, 51759
| Decision Date | 07 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 51759,51759 |
| Citation | 538 S.W.2d 414 |
| Parties | Floyd JAMES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Paul S. Colley, Henderson, for appellant.
Donald R. Ross, County Atty., and Davis P. Brown, Asst. County Atty., Henderson, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
BROWN, Commissioner.
This is an appeal from a conviction for burglary of a habitation. Trial was before a jury and appellant was found guilty and his punishment was assessed at twenty (20) years in the Texas Department of Corrections.
In two grounds of error appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence corroborating the testimony of an accomplice witness.
The record shows that the home of Mr. and Mrs. Joe Price Gibson was burglarized sometime between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on January 22, 1975. Mrs. Gibson testified that she returned to the house on Airport Highway near Henderson, Texas at about 4:00 p.m. and noticed that the carport door was open. She said that she looked through the open door and saw that a closet door inside was open and the contents of the closet had been strewn all over the room. She did not enter the house, but went to a neighbor's home and called the Rusk County Sheriff's department and her husband. Mr. Gibson testified that he and his wife and the sheriff's deputy examined the home and determined that a television, a stereo record player and two guns were missing and that other rooms of the house had been ransacked.
John Winn, a neighbor, testified that he passed the Gibson home on his way to work at approximately 3:30 p.m. on the afternoon of the burglary. The Gibson house is situated on a hill some one hundred yards from the Airport Highway and Winn stated that as he drove past he noticed a car parked in the driveway seventy-five to a hundred feet from the house. Winn described the car as a late model 'mid-size' Chevrolet, probably the 'Chevelle series.' He described the color as 'off yellow or off light tan or butterscotch' with either a brown or black top. He stated that the trunk lid of the car was open and that two black males were standing behind the car. One of the men he described as 'a very large person' close to six feet three inches in height and much heavier than 160 pounds. Winn could not describe the clothing worn by the two men and could not identify appellant as one of the men, although he did testify that appellant was 'that large of a man.' Winn stated that when he passed the house and saw the men he did not think anything unusual had happened.
Noah Carr testified as an accomplice witness and as a party to the crime. He stated that he and appellant met in Longview and drove together in appellant's car to the house on Airport Highway. Carr described the car as a 'tan Chevrolet Chevelle' with a black top. He stated that he entered the house through the carport and that they took a television, a stereo and two guns.
Michael Strong, chief deputy sheriff of Rusk County, testified that he knew appellant and was familiar with the type of car he was driving in January 1975. He described the car as a 'butterscotch yellow Chevelle . . . in the early '70's' with a black top. On cross-examination, Strong was asked if he saw appellant driving that car on January 22, 1975 and he replied that he 'couldn't testify even what I drove then.'
None of the stolen property was recovered.
Art. 38.14, V.A.C.C.P., requires corroborating evidence which tends to connect the defendant with the offense in order to support a conviction based upon accomplice testimony. Such corroboration is insufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense.
The well-established test of the sufficiency of the corroborating testimony is to eliminate from consideration the evidence of the accomplice witness and then to examine the testimony of other witnesses to ascertain if there is inculpatory evidence which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
May v. State
...472 S.W.2d 273 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). The corroboration need only make the accomplice's testimony more likely than not. James v. State, 538 S.W.2d 414 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Bentley v. State, supra; Warren v. State, 514 S.W.2d 458 There is ample evidence in the record to corroborate Smith's testimo......
-
Paulus v. State
...Cherb v. State, 472 S.W.2d 273 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Reynolds v. State, 489 S.W.2d 866 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); James v. State, 538 S.W.2d 414 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Etheredge v. State, 542 S.W.2d 148 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Nelson v. State, 542 S.W.2d 175 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Loa v. State, 545 S.W.2d 837 (Tex......
-
Carrillo v. State
...472 S.W.2d 273 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). The corroboration need only make the accomplice's testimony more likely than not. James v. State, 538 S.W.2d 414 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Bentley v. State, supra; Warren v. State, 514 S.W.2d 458 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). Neither Chapa nor Taylor was able to corroborate ......
-
Reed v. State
...was only the "more likely than not" test. See, i.e., Bentley v. State, 520 S.W.2d 390, 393 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), and James v. State, 538 S.W.2d 414, 416 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). Thus, to the extent they conflict with today's decision and the correct statutory "tending to connect" test, the following......